1 |
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:10:14PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
3 |
>> On 3/7/11 11:13 AM, Brian Harring wrote: |
4 |
>> > Re-read what he stated- it'll convert all existing NEW bugs to |
5 |
>> > CONFIRMED upon migration. There's a fair number of bugs that are in a |
6 |
>> > NEW state, decent number that have sat for a long while too. Those |
7 |
>> > bugs aren't 'confirmed'- just like with the new work flow where the |
8 |
>> > dev flips it from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED, leave it to devs to flip |
9 |
>> > the current bugs from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED rather than just |
10 |
>> > marking everything as CONFIRMED. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it seems we have both |
13 |
>> UNCONFIRMED and NEW in the "old" workflow. My understanding is that |
14 |
>> CONFIRMED is the new name for NEW, which makes sense. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
> Sorry but no. NEW means "Ok I think this is a bug. Can you please take a |
17 |
> look?". CONFIRMED is "ok this is definitely a bug. I am able to |
18 |
> reproduce etc and will look into fixing it". The meaning is slightly |
19 |
> different but it is important to distinguish valid from invalid bugs. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Regards, |
23 |
> -- |
24 |
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
If we were to switch to the new workflow, it probably would make sense |
28 |
to switch the default new bug status to UNCONFIRMED. I'm not sure how |
29 |
we would handle the existing bugs in NEW status. |
30 |
|
31 |
Here are the workflow diagrams for our old Bugzilla and the new one. I |
32 |
find pictures are a bit easier to follow. |
33 |
|
34 |
Bugzilla 2.22: |
35 |
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.22/html/lifecycle.html |
36 |
|
37 |
Bugzilla 4.0: |
38 |
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/4.0/en/html/lifecycle.html |